Niddah 85

Chapter 85

א ולא תוך תוכו קמ"ל

1 But not the inside of its inside,1

ב אמר ר"ל קנה בקומטו של זב והסיט בו את הטהור טהור קנה בקומטו של טהור והסיט בו את הזב טמא

2 hence we were informed [that the oven is unclean].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The implication, 'but not the inside of its inside' excludes only the case where a creeping thing was within a vessel whose rim and mouth projected above the vessel in which it was contained. ');">2 Resh Lakish ruled: If a reed was held in a fold of the body of a zab and he shook therewith a clean person the latter remains clean.3 If a reed was held in the fold of the body of a clean person and he shook therewith a zab the former is unclean.4

ג מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא טו, יא) וכל אשר יגע בו הזב וידיו לא שטף במים זהו הסיטו של זב שלא מצינו לו טומאה בכל התורה כולה

3 What is the reason?5

ד ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון נגיעה למימרא דהיסט ונגיעה כידיו מה התם מאבראי אף הכא מאבראי

4 Because Scripture said, And whomsoever he that hath issue6

ה אבל הזב ובעל קרי אינן מטמאין וכו' זב דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ב) כי יהיה זב מבשרו עד שיצא זובו מבשרו בעל קרי דכתיב (ויקרא טו, טז) ואיש כי תצא ממנו שכבת זרע

5 toucheth, without having rinsed his hands in water,7 and this8 refers to the shaking of a zab, a form of conveyance of uncleanness the like of which we do not find anywhere in all the Torah; and the All Merciful expressed this in the term of touching,9 in order to tell that shaking and touching must be performed with a part of the body which is like one's hands; as one's hands are exposed10

ו היה אוכל בתרומה והרגיש וכו' אוחז והתניא ר"א אומר כל האוחז באמה ומשתין כאילו מביא מבול לעולם

6 so must any other part of the body11 be exposed. BUT A ZAB AND ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN CONVEY NO UNCLEANNESS etc. A ZAB, because it is written in Scripture, When any man hath an issue out of his flesh,12 [which implies that no uncleanness is conveyed] unless his issue emerged 'out of his flesh'; ONE WHO EMITTED SEMEN, because It is written, And if the flow of seed go out from a man.13

ז אמר אביי במטלית עבה רבא אמר אפילו תימא במטלית רכה כיון דעקר עקר ואביי חייש דילמא אתי לאוסופי ורבא לאוסופי לא חייש

7 IF A MAN WAS EATING TERUMAH WHEN HE FELT etc. Was it not, however, taught: R. Eliezer stated, whoever holds his membrum when he makes water is as though he had brought a flood on the world?14 — Abaye replied: One does it with a thick rag.15 Raba stated: It may even be done with a soft rag, for once the semen has been detached the subsequent touch is of no consequence.16 And Abaye?17 — He takes into consideration the possibility of an additional discharge. And Raba? — He does not consider the possibility of an additional discharge. But does he not?18

ח והתניא למה זה דומה לנותן אצבע בעין שכל זמן שאצבע בעין מדמעת וחוזרת ומדמעת

8 Was it not in fact taught: 'To what may this be compared? To the putting of a finger upon the eye when, so long as the finger remains on it, the eye continues to tear'? Now Raba?19 — It is unusual to get heated twice in immediate succession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'any being heated and being heated again at the time is not usual'. The comparison with the eye holds good only when a discharge was originally due to friction. ');">20

ט ורבא כל אחמומי והדר אחמומי בשעתא לא שכיח

9 Samuel ruled, Any semen the emission of which is not felt throughout one's body causes no uncleanness. What is the reason? — The All Merciful has said, The flow of seed,21

י אמר שמואל כל שכבת זרע שאין כל גופו מרגיש בה אינה מטמאה מ"ט שכבת זרע אמר רחמנא בראויה להזריע

10 implying that the text22 deals only with such as is fit to produce seed. An objection was raised: If a man was troubled with unchaste thoughts in the night and when he rose up he found his flesh heated, he is unclean!23 — R. Huna explained this to apply to a man who dreamt of indulging in sexual intercourse, it being impossible to indulge in the act without experiencing the sensation. Another rendering: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no uncleanness. What is the practical difference between the latter reading and the former reading? — The practical difference between them is the case where the detachment of the semen was perceived but the emergence was not felt.24 Now this ruling which was quite obvious to Samuel was a matter of enquiry for Raba. For Raba enquired: What is the law where the detachment of the semen was perceived but its emergence was not felt?25

יא מיתיבי היה מהרהר בלילה ועמד ומצא בשרו חם טמא תרגמא רב הונא במשמש מטתו בחלומו דאי אפשר לשמש בלא הרגשה

11 — Come and hear: If a man who emitted semen performed immersion26 before he had made water, his uncleanness is resumed when he makes water!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mik. VIII, 4 (cur. edd. '3', is an error). Now here there was obviously no perception, and yet uncleanness is nevertheless conveyed. An objection against Samuel. ');">27 — There it is different, since the emergence of most of the semen was perceived. Others have a different reading: Samuel ruled, Any semen which does not shoot forth like an arrow causes no fructification. It is only fructification that it does not cause but it does cause uncleanness, for it is said in Scripture. If there be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him,28 which implies: Even a chance emission29

יב לישנא אחרינא אמר שמואל כל שכבת זרע שאינו יורה כחץ אינה מטמאה מאי איכא בין האי לישנא להאי לישנא איכא בינייהו נעקרה בהרגשה ויצאה שלא בהרגשה

12 whatever its nature.30 Raba enquired: What is the law where an idolater indulged in sexual thoughts,31 and then32 he went down and performed ritual immersion?33 If you were to find some case where we follow the time of detachment34

יג מילתא דפשיטא ליה לשמואל מיבעיא ליה לרבא דבעי רבא נעקרה בהרגשה ויצתה שלא בהרגשה מהו

13 [the question would arise]. Does this apply only where the law is thereby restricted,35 but not here36 where the law would thereby be relaxed,37

יד ת"ש בעל קרי שטבל ולא הטיל מים לכשיטיל מים טמא שאני התם דרובה בהרגשה נפק

14 or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided. Raba enquired: What is the ruling where the urine of a zabah had been detached from the source38 and then she went down and performed ritual immersion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby she is freed from her uncleanness; and then she made the water. Is she, it is asked, unclean because at the time of the detachment she was unclean or is she clean because the emergence took place when she was already in a condition of cleanness? ');">39

טו לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר שמואל כל שכבת זרע שאינו יורה כחץ אינה מזרעת אזרועי הוא דלא מזרעא הא טמויי מטמיא שנאמר (דברים כג, יא) כי יהיה בך איש אשר לא יהיה טהור מקרה אפילו קרי בעולם

15 If you were to find some case where we follow the time of the detachment [the question would arise], Does this apply only to semen, since it cannot be restrained,40 but not to her urine which she is able to restrain,41

טז בעי רבא עובד כוכבים שהרהר וירד וטבל מהו

16 or is it possible that no distinction is made? — This is undecided. Raba enquired: What is the law where the urine of an idolatress42

יז אם תמצי לומר בתר עקירה אזלינן הני מילי לחומרא אבל הכא דלקולא לא אמרינן או דילמא לא שנא תיקו

17 who was a zabah had been detached

יח בעי רבא זבה שנעקרו מימי רגליה וירדה וטבלה מהו

יט אם תמצא לומר בתר עקירה אזלינן הני מילי שכבת זרע דלא מצי נקיט לה אבל מימי רגליה דמצי נקיט לה לא או דילמא לא שנא תיקו

כ בעי רבא עובדת כוכבים זבה שנעקרו מימי רגליה

Previous Chapter Next Chapter